Talk:Anus/Archive 02

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Images, revisted (and hopefully laid to rest).

The male anus has been removed by various users, myself included. I stand by this change as I believe the item is redundant, per the given reason for the addition of the male anus being inappropriate, the reason given is that it "is different (for instance, because of hairs)", this is lacking in principal or forethought. The human anus is identical, a sphincter is a sphincter, whilst every anus is different in aesthetics however we cannot list every anus, thus one example is neccesary to define the anus.

That being said, it appears that immediately on removal without discussion two users who guard this article revert without query, which whilst mildly irritating caused me to ponder whether it is appropriate to have images at all given the public backlash (ie: the fact that 90% of the articles talk page is whether or not images should be included). So I figure perhaps we should adopt a purposive approach and examine this a little more clearly.

Cited in the pro-anus basket most of all is that 'Wikipedia is not censored (for minors)'. However, Wikipedia's policy should then be examined as to what is stipulated on the matter: -

Wikipedia is not censored
Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Anyone reading Wikipedia can edit an article and the changes are displayed instantaneously without any checking to ensure appropriateness, so Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are tasteful to all users or adhere to specific social or religious norms or requirements. While obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site) is usually removed immediately, some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the article about pornography) and provided they do not violate any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view), nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where Wikipedia's servers are hosted.

So let us examine the obscenity and decency laws of Florida,[1] which are very verbose on the matter yet also very, very stringent in their scope: -

(6) "Harmful to minors" means any reproduction, imitation, characterization, description, exhibition, presentation, or representation, of whatever kind or form, depicting nudity, sexual conduct, or sexual excitement when it:
(a) Predominantly appeals to the prurient, shameful, or morbid interest of minors;
(b) Is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable material for minors; and
(c) Taken as a whole, is without serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.
(10) "Obscene" means the status of material which:
(a) The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
(b) Depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct as specifically defined herein; and
(c) Taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

The argument then becomes whether or not a certain article or piece of media "lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." Many comentators have been swift to point out that 'academic or educational' is not listed in this category of exemption from the law. Thus, expressio unius est exclusio alterius: ‘the express mention of one thing is the exclusion of another’.

We can thus derive from this that as Wikipedia is not a scientific resource, but an academic and educational resource, it does not, by law, have permit to publish images that may be of questionable nature. Whilst I may not agree with the laws of Florida on this matter, especially due to the fact they still list 'anal sex' as 'deviate sexual intercourse', as well as pre-marital sex likewise, I, as a Wikipedian am bound by the legislation in place that governs the location of the hosting server.

So we've worked out that the photos themselves may be illegal and we must definitely err on the side of caution, all it takes is one bored filing of a civil decency complaint and a take down notice of the site to ruin our favorite hobby, especially as there are digital images alternatives, diagrams and other such graphics of equal quality available (even without license) the world over; what solutions are we left with and where shall we go from here?

I personally would recommend sticking with the Grey's diagrams we have, although as said above, there are many photorealistic diagrams out there in the medical world which may be of more avail to the purpose of the article. Opinions, anyone? Jachin 04:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You need to find a lawyer, your interpretation of Florida law is severely flawed. The First amendment of the United States (freedom from religion, freedom of speech) supercedes Florida law. It allows limitation of free speech (in this context) based on the interpretation of "Obscenity". The supreme court decision [2] led to what is knows as "The Miller Test". That is also fondly known as the SLAPS test. Florida law can make a "less restricitive" interpretation of this, but not a "more restrictive" interpretation of "obscenity". Florida Statutes (which you partly quote), notably "Chapter 847 - Obscenity" [3] deal with this. The key piece being their version/definition of "Obscenity":
(a)  Predominantly appeals to the prurient, shameful, or morbid interest of minors; 
(b)  Is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable material for minors; and 
(c)  Taken as a whole, is without serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors. 
A mother's breastfeeding of her baby is not under any circumstance "harmful to minors."
In a nutshell, their re-iteration of the Miller test/SLAPS, but making it LESS restrictive (by not allowing breastfeeding to be interpreted as obscenity).
There is NOTHING in Florida law about what kind of instutions may or may not publish certain kinds of images. Any attempt by the state of Florida to limit free speech in such a way would result in a case that the Supreme court would immediatly "SLAPS" down. The question would be probably phrased as "Is Wikimedia, as a whole, without serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value?" Or possibly " Is the Wikipedia article on Anus, as a whole, without serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value?". Clearly in either case the State of Florida would lose the votes of seven of the nine justices, (except for Scalia and Thomas -- who have a special interest in the Wikipedia article in question, being themselves defined there). Atom 18:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


These issues have been settled. Why don't you read the prior discussions? The anus-hating opinions are tiresome. Except for this new one: fear of a "civil decency complaint." What the fuck is a "civil decency complaint"? To what agency does one submit such a complaint? 68.0.118.116 05:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
As I have indicated in my post I have obviously read the prior discussions, however the issues I have raised were not addressed and those are a matter of legality and policy (both intrinsic to Wikipedia and extrinsic). The rest of your response deserves no attention. 211.30.80.121 07:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to adress this in sections:
1) To your original complaint: The male anus isn't just different because of hair, it's better because of hair. The female buttocks is artificially modified, and a global oddity. The female anus has POV implications about women and about shaving. The male anus is also at least 5 times larger, and 93 times higher quality in terms of KB. The male anus is centred, the female is at an odd angle and not. If you're so desperate to delete one, delete the female.
My inclination is to keep both. The female anus, though poorer quality, provides a different perspective. In fact, even with it, I don't know what the female area is supposed to look like. The only buttocks I know has a lump at the bottom where the penis and scrotum start, very close to the anus.
2) To your legal issue, that's hardly specific to anus. What about penis and breast, both with no less than seven photographs each? Eight on penis if you count the giant elephant genitalia? Since your issue is with 'legality and policy' now, why not ask Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not?
--Kinst 16:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I shall respond to your comments in kind, as per the first point you raised I can see the potential implications as you raised them. I would personally claim it is sexist if it weren't for the fact that 12/14 body part articles are male focused only; however the hair removal has been noted with the female photo. Thus perhaps we should organise a consensus, as the prior consensus was outdated immediately on the placement of an additional unagreed upon photograph. That is why I addressed that photograph as it was not agreed upon. That is on the grounds that it is -not- illegal under the laws of Florida to maintain these images when Wikipedia is not a 'scientific purpose'.
Secondly, I understand what you are saying, however I did not point this out in those articles, feel free to do so if you likewise wish to draw their attention to the fact that the images may be in breach of the laws of Florida. I have not been to these articles, nor have any intention on going there.
And, with those two points out of the way, my purposive point raised (on the legality issue) still stands and, I feel at present, has not been addressed at all. Your above comments are purely obiter and do not touch on the issue raised. "X is doing it, so why can't we." is not a very valid response. Jachin 05:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Jachin, if you want to discuss the legality of the images then this is really the wrong place to do it. Go and contact the wikimedia board (board@wikimedia.org). If the image should not be on this page then it should be removed from the image servers also.--Clawed 07:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree, thank you Clawed. I shot an email off with a more in depth analysis of the matter to them. All it would take is a censor-weenie (tm) running to a local court house to get a take-down order filed, it's not worth risking our wiki project just for the censor-weenie polar opposites out there. Jachin 09:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe the above should be retained also as the below is POV biased approach to the consensus that was reached based on the laws of the state where Wikipedia is hosted and not Wikipedia's internal policies which have no jurisdiction over the matter per Californian law. Furthermore, the above is not dated enough for it to be worthy of archiving. 211.30.71.59 23:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

So, what did the above discussion yield? Is there a reason to believe laws are being broken? Please don't suggests that Talk page consensus suggests that the image must legally be removed when no such consensus exists. In any case, the discussion is a month old, which is why it was archived. As the summary below states, "if you have new insight, not yet covered in these lists, please discuss below." -- Ec5618 06:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Can't anyone take a picture of, say, their cat's anus? Image:Ano.jpg here very nearly had me vomit into the keyboard? Dr Zak 21:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Dr Zak, once a bit more attention is drawn to this issue we'll do a vote and have the photos removed, or have a link to a photo that is on a medical site, thus negating the legal issues that were raised above. At present Wikipedia is breaking the law of the state in which it resides, all it'll take is one lamer to report it and we'll face some downtime.  :( 211.30.71.59 08:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

That we are breaking the law seems to be your opinion, and yours alone. The Florida law, as per the definitions above, certainly doesn't deem the image obscene. For one thing, it doesn't predominantly appeal to "the prurient, shameful, or morbid interest of minors". In any case, this issue transcends this article alone. -- Ec5618 08:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
And on what authority are you speaking on behalf of all the minors of our audience, Ec5618? Your comment shows little understanding of statutory interpretation of legislation. 211.30.71.59 11:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Obviously, that's not he issue. The image does not predominantly appeal to minors. Period. Now, on what authority can you state unequivocably that Wikipedia is breaking the law?
I am removing the official looking, unsigned, out of place comment you placed below. You are welcome to state that you believe that, in this case, "Artwork, including engravings, illustrations, and line drawings should be preferred over photographs". Just don't do it in this way. Thank you. -- Ec5618 15:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Education at the finest law school in the southern hemisphere backed by many years of statutory intepretive experience having worked in law enforcement from 1998 to 2004. I don't believe my credentials are relevant however, what I believe is relevant is the protection of the Wiki Foundation from uneccesary strife in courts due to Kinst's incessant need to retain the vanity image posted without consensus by the Italian gentleman who thought it'd be fun to put his anus up there with the already hotly debated anus that was up beforehand, which Kinst strangely fought to have removed. 211.30.71.59 16:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I never fought to have the old anus removed. And why am I the subject of all of your complaints? --Kinst 20:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

We appreciate your desire to protect Wikipedia by censoring it of images that you find undesirable. I can't say that my background makes me knowledable about law in the southern hemisphere, your area of expertise. Fortunately the law on civil liberties and the first amendment, in the U.S. is well defined (which fortunately, is still in the northern hemisphere). The picture of the anus may be unpleasant for some, but hardly inappropriate for an article on the subject. It doesn't even remotely come close to violating the law in the State of Florida, so be comforted that Wikipedia is not at risk. There may be a variety of reasons why that specific anus picture is not the best one for the article, but suggesting that this Wikipedia article, including a picture of an anus, violates obscenity law (in the U.S. or Florida) is just way incorrect. You could say that there was a better image available, or that the image did not add any benefit or quality to the article. Atom 21:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree, I've discussed this with a few other jurisprudent focused individuals on Wikipedia and most were in agreeance. As for the other means you addressed to touch on the image issue, if you read the archives, they have been brought up many times by offended parties who've come through to this article and been moved to complain on the talk page only to be shot down by the editors of this article. 211.30.71.59 03:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thats a nice disgusting picture you have there. Thanks.

Howdy, Mr. Australian Legal-Beagle! I'm sure there are many people who will readily agree with you. Unfortunately, you're factually incorrect. I don't know much about the laws in Australia, but having worked in law enforcement and government in the United States of America and having had close contact with legal professionals of a variety of sorts, I feel quite comfortable in saying that a picture of an individual's anus within the context of an educational article about said body part, while potentially offensive to the sensibilities of some, or even many, is in no way illegal for a web service in Florida to host and disseminate. Should there be any legal issues which arise from any such potentially objectionable content, I'm quite sure that our friends at the EFF will be more than willing to assist with them, all the way up to the United States Supreme Court, if necessary. Thank you for your input, and have a good day! I also thought I'd take a moment to address what someone previously said about running to a local courthouse to get a takedown order filed. No such process exists anywhere in the US. A DMCA takedown notice can be sent by the owner of a copyrighted work or their authorized agent (and requires no visitting of any courthouses) if they reasonably believe that their work is being distributed by a third party without license to do so. If, indeed, this picture is a copyrighted work which wikipedia is not licensed to use or distribute, then wikimedia may indeed be subject to receiving a DMCA takedown notice with regards to this image from it's copyright owner. However, I've not heard anyone make such a claim thus far, despite a host of other (somewhat-silly) claims regarding the image(s) in question. This is the only thing I can imagine you are possibly referring to given the phrase you used in your post. 68.233.12.105 04:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

As I see it, the wiki has every right to host this image. My question is simply "does it need to?" I'm not going into debates of legality, decency or anything like that, I just fail to see the reason why there's a picture of a male anus. To show what an anus looks like? Well we have the anatomical diagrams. To show the hairs? Seriously, the article tells you there are hairs - why do you need to see them? Wikipedia is supposed to be a quick reference system. My issue with the anus picture is simply that it uses bandwidth and sparks stupid debates without actually adding anything useful to the article. Am I offended? No. Do I hate freedom of speach? No. Do I think the image is "illegal"? No. What I do think is that this image has caused a lot of debate and outcry (which uses server resources) and no benefit to the wiki. - JohnDoe244 12:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On images

A large number of people have weighed in on the matter of images in this article. Unfortunately, Wikipedia profanity policy is not terribly clear on this matter. The images may stay if they are informative, and must be removed if they are not. If the drawings of the pelvic regions are adequate, the photos are useless. However, there is disagreement over what constitutes 'offensive', 'relevant' and 'suitable alternative'.

We have several arguments on the issue of photos:

  1. The images are not particularly offensive, and they illustrate the topic of the article.
  2. The images are shown to people who searched for an article on this topic. Surely readers who wish to read an encyclopedia article on this topic know what they're going to find.
  3. The images are offensive, and should therefore be removed.
  4. The images are offensive, and serve no purpose, and should therefore be removed.
  5. The images are offensive, and children may find them here.
  6. Wikipedia does not censor profanity in the article on profanity. It shouldn't censor images of human anatomy in articles on human anatomy.
  7. Showing images of these specific parts of human anatomy may be illegal in some countries. In the interests of global acceptance, we should remove the images.
  8. Showing images of these specific parts of human anatomy may not be allowed in public libraries, which would effectively deny some people access to the article.

We also have several arguments regarding these specific photos:

  1. The image of the female anus is clear enough. The male anus is redundant and should be removed.
  2. The image of the male anus is clear enough. The female anus is redundant and should be removed.
  3. The image of the female anus shows a cosmetically altered anus. This is an unnatural state of an anus to be in, and thus the image of the male anus is prefered.
  4. The image of the male anus is of better quality. The image of the male anus is prefered.

Hopefully this will clarify matters. If you have new insight, not yet covered in these lists, please discuss below. -- Ec5618 22:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

  • The female anus has apparently been deleted off of Commons for its liscence. :-( --Kinst 14:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
That is unfortunate. That was an excellent image of an anus. Perhaps the person who posted it before will post it again at some time. Svartulfr1 03:28 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't a good solution be to have links to the pictures with a warning, then each visitor can make their own mind up whether they want to see the pictures...?--212.56.109.125 11:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree, as this is an encyclopedia, and just like any paper encyclopedia, you can expect anatomical pictures when you look up parts of the anatomy. If a picture is deemed so vulgar as to require a warning page, it shouldn't be here or it should be replaced with a drawing. As it is, I think it's fine. Your idea would also present a slippery slope for other kinds of censorship on wikipedia, such as sex-related articles that have no pictures but are surely descriptive enough to rank worse in terms of vulgarity than a picture of the anus in an anus article.--Trypsin 08:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the suggestion of User:212.56.109.125 provided the link to the image of the anus is off-site from Wikipedia as a whole, which would then meet the requirements for the laws of California and cover the butts of the Wikipedia project. On close review of the article at the top of the page dealing with statutory interpretation, I would say that this isn't just something worth suggesting, it's something we have to oblige to obey the laws of the state in which Wikipedia is hosted. From a objective review of these discussions it is only Kinst and two other users who are adamant that there is even a need for a photograph of an anus, with a strong stipulation / favour behind the male anus. They might have their reasons for such beliefs, however I do not find them to be rational or based on the facts but more on opinion. 211.30.71.59 23:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand. Are you suggesting moving the images to another server, unrelated to Wikipedia? Why? What 'requirements for the laws of California' are you talking about? What laws prevent Wikipedia from displaying functional nudity? -- Ec5618 05:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

If there is one guy here who honestly thinks it is better having a picture of a male anus over a female anus, regardless of whether it is irrelevant to an encyclopedia, you need to stop what you are doing right now and reassure yourself about your sexuality. Seriously, to think that there is a single man on here arguing about this is absolutely sickening. The people supporting this have no fairer points than the people against it, it's all just mindless dribble which seems to subtly imply something bizarre about the way you look at the human body. So for the love of god, get over it and stick another picture up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.168.51.15 (talk • contribs).

Please avoid personal attacks. The sexual preferences of our editors is not the issue here, and calling other editors idiots serves no purpose. -- Ec5618 10:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Fair call, but don't you understand anything I said apart from that? If you can't come up with a suffice decision, at least use both pics (on just DONT HAVE ANY AT ALL!), but stop trying to defend this silly idea that having a male anus somehow breaks down the gender barrier. Everybody here is the editor of an encyclopedia, you are required to be smart and knowledgeable people. Everybody's gotta stop being so frigin childish, and this isn't a personal attack, I'm just telling you all straight so you understand, you need to grow up! And face it................do you really enjoy looking at that?
To be honest, I wan't expecting you to return. Thank you for taking the time. All right, your points. First, whether anyone enjoys looking at an anus is irrelevant. The image is informative and relevant. I doubt many people enjoy looking at floor plans, but we include an image of those in the relevant article. I will grant you that the image is not excellent, but that should be a reason to replace it with a better image, not to remove this one.
Second, your main point seems to be that you believe that some people are trying to make sure that only an image of a male anus is used. I don't believe this is true. A short while ago, this article featured two anuses. One of a male, and one of a female. The image of the female anus was removed from Wikipedia Commons due to questions about its source. That is the only reason, as far as I'm aware, that only an image of an anus is used.
This article could, in my view, do with a few decent (quality) images. In that sense, removing images seems counterproductive. -- Ec5618 17:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I think you just misunderstand. The female anus was deleted because it wasn't sourced properly. I advocated using both pictures too, but we don't have that option anymore. If we can get another high quality anus I'm sure it would be added. --Kinst 23:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Kinst is the anus defender of this article, backed up by two of his associates. Yet the amount of traffic that has come through which has complained about this issue says to me that it's inappropriate content. There's an old maxim in communication as far as complaints are concerned, "For every moan heard there are a thousand unheard." That being, due to the apathetic nature of people, consider every complaint in written form as at least the complaint of a thousand people. Even if we took it to be 1 in 10 who are offended who take the time to publish on the topic, I'd say Kinst and co are fighting a losing battle. Perhaps Kinst and co can move the hairy male anus to their personal pages and thus everyone is happy?  :) 211.30.71.59 08:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
The same argument may be applied against removing the image. For every person who would prefer to keep the image, very few voices are likely to be heard, as very few people are aware of your indignation. Very few people who appreciate images in this article are going to take the time to applaud those images.
The rest of your post is patently ridiculous. -- Ec5618 08:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

This discussion of images applies to numerous other articles, most of the sexology and sexuality oriented. I have begun a discussion of the broader topic on Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines to have people participate in working on a guideline consensus (not a policy, or rules, as that hasn't been possible in the past). Having a consensus of people who have hashed this out and agreed on some guidelines will help in the future to combat against the types of problems we have had in the past. (Prudish people pushing their POV, Trolls trying to create controversy, Vanity images, etc.) Of course it won't be a solution to all problems, and they will still need to be dealt with on a case by case basis, but there really isn't a need to rehash the entire barrel of pickles on every image on every sexuality based page, and then again when someone tries to change an image. Atom 17:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

With regards to the picture, I may be wrong here, but I believe it is normal for bodyparts used for "demonstration purposes" to have their hair removed before display. I agree that this is not so much a hairy anus as a clump of hair with an anus supposedly somewhere amidst it. Also, nobody is allowed to volunteer a less "hirsute" image of their own?

[edit] May i edit this please?

No. Why? JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It's protected because of the image deletion war. Put your suggested edits here, and they can be incorporated when the edit war ends. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I guess we have to ask what is more important, the deletion of the image, or the deletion of every Wikipedians ability to add to, formulate, stylise, modify or otherwise streamline the fluidity of articles. I believe that the locking of this article is redundant as this 'image deletion war' has been ongoing since some Italian bloke decided to add his hairy bumhole to the article without discussing it first. I question the logic being illustrated here, given that we can survive even if the hairy male anus image is deleted or not based on the anatomical diagrams which demonstrate the specific body part perfectly. At what cost? The entire fundamental concept of Wikipedia. Great trade-off there. 211.30.71.59 16:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
This demonstrates the body part perfectly?
http://img460.imageshack.us/img460/1613/anuszg3.png
All the diagrams do is tell us where the anus is, not what it looks like. --Kinst 16:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd prefer a female picture and one without any hair. That male one is creepy. Anomo 20:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Sexual preference aside, in humans the area around the anus is generally hairy. As such, any image we use will show a hairy anus. On top of that, the gender of the person is not really relevant here. -- Ec5618 22:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Have you considered that your conclusion that all human anuses are hairy may be biased by an unrepresentative sample? What is your source for this information, if you don't mind my asking? I don't understand the obsession with hairy anuses on this talk page; many human anuses are naturally hairless. Manderr 09:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC).
I've encountered many people who naturally did not have hair around their anus? Furthermore, the female image was consensus approved, the male image was a vanity image publication by the author without consensus approval that didn't add further information to the article but was purely so he could have his anatomy flashed about, as with his further images which have subsequently been taken down. 211.30.71.59 08:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Your frame of reference is astounding. Still, considering that most people have hair around their anus, any representative image we use will show a hairy anus. In any case, no-one is objecting to the addition of further images, but removing the only image we have seems counterproductive. -- Ec5618 10:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Puberty

Why is it that in the 'Puberty' section, it discusses hair around the anus as though only males have it? Females have it, too. The way it's worded is misleading. Also, the claims need to be cited.CerealBabyMilk 20:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

We (someone who know's what they're doing) should incorporate female hair into this article as well. And for the love of god, someone put the female anus back, it's only fair. If you can replace the male anus with something more appropriate.Paskari 20:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The asshole looks weird

Shouldn't the picture demonstrate what the "average" male anus looks like? Not only is the guy exceedingly hairy, his actual butthole looks a bit...off. I dunno, it just looks kind of swollen, distended, long, puffy, however you want to put it. It looks like this guy has been engaging in some goatse behavior. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it leaves the asshole looking "unnatural." Whatever the cause is, the picture isn't what my ass looks like, nor is it like 95% of the asses I've seen in my 23 years.

Also, we need a picture of a female anus. Roland Deschain 09:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I second this removal as per the image guidelines on the following grounds: -
No images created by, or including, Wikipedia editors
This helps maintain neutrality, and avoids vanity images.
The existing Wikipedia policies of "no original research" and "vanity guidelines" best illustrate this point.
The image ano.jpg was a random unsolicited and unrequired addition by User:Bolo77 that clearly doesn't sit well with Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines and Wikipedia:No original research as well as the WIP image guidelines. 211.30.71.59 05:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Those guidelines are a proposed, as opposed to accepted. Come back when they're accepted. -- Ec5618 06:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
We don't have another anus anymore, but certainly a better anus would be useful. An image that is significantly 'better' and can reach consensus may well replace the image we have now. --Kinst 23:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Let's ask for some at Wikipedia:Requested pictures, and pick from the three thousand we get. Atom 02:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines and Wikipedia:No original research are proposed guidelines? You better inform others, Ec5618, we're all under the belief they're accepted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.30.71.59 (talk • contribs).
What on earth are you talking about? Yes, those guidelines are accepted. They also have no relevance here. The guidelines you now link to make no mention of this issue. You were quoting proposed guidelines. -- Ec5618 10:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, in any case, I researched, and the anus image was not put in this article by the person who put it on the commons site, but by someone else. Also, the contributor of the image has never edited the article, so how can it be a vanity image, or original research? And, calling an image of a person "original research" is quite a stretch. Atom 10:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ridiculous Image Debate

Why are you so obsessed about keeping the anus picture anyway, Ec5618? I don't really care but it seems like there was already a suitable picture in the article that there was a consensus on until someone decided to replace it unnecessarily with a picture of their own. The current picture is fine by me, but seeing as it's causing so much fuss, and seeing as there was no need to replace the original picture it would seem that the obvious and correct course of action is to restore the original image. - 81.179.148.71 12:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The old image was deleted because of copyright issues. The anus we have now was never intended as a replacement in any case; they were alongside each other until the old anus had to be deleted. See here:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2006/07#Image:Human_female_anus.jpeg
--Kinst 22:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is always an educational experience for me. I had no idea how difficult it is to find a copyright-safe picture of a butthole. See, you learn something new everyday! Roland Deschain 07:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • "I don't really care but it seems like there was already a suitable picture in the article that there was a consensus on until someone decided to replace it unnecessarily with a picture of their own." ---- A picture of their own anus??? lmao

user:82.39.156.37 17:32, 7 October 2006

  • Try reading the talk page, would you? The image was not added by the perosn who downloaded it, but by someone else. I think you will agree that it *is* an anus, and the article is about "anus". The previous image, a female anus, also not added by the person who added the image to Wikipedia commons, was removed for copyright violation, which is why there ius a different one. Atom 02:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


I think it should be just a link to the picture of the anus and not the actual one there. We could also use the dog's one from Anal glands, which is less shocking because it's not human. Anomo 07:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The 'dog one from anal glands' shows an anal gland abscess, which is hardly appropriate. And considering the erect penis in the penis article isn't hidden behind a link, I'd hardly consider hiding this image appropriate either. An image of an anus is hardly worse than that. Actually, I find it odd that so many people object to seeing this specific anus, while the almost pornographic image of a female anus was hardly objected to. -- Ec5618 08:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is worse Frenulum. I think wikipedia should have warning tags for this. And to answer your question. Male = ugly. Female = sometimes good looking. Anomo 09:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we should decide what images to place in an encyclopedia based on the sexual preference of the average wikipedian?
And yes, the image showing the frenulum is quite clear, which I gather translates to offensive in some people's minds. But since the image of the frenulum isn't hidden (and I would argue against hiding that image), why should this image be? Why shouldn't the article on semen contain an image of the substance in question? Why shouldn't the article on the anus contain an image, the best image we have? -- Ec5618 10:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I had a paper encyclopedia once and they had diagrams of all this stuff and never actual pictures. Anomo 14:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Which is another point entirely. Wikipedia has the luxury of being able to use free images donated by editors, whereas commercial encyclopedias are limited by their budget in selecting images. Wikipedia also has the luxury of being able to include several images on a single topic, whereas paper encyclopedias are rarely able to do so. Also, Wikipedia uses sound and hyperlinking to communicate, op top of plain text and simple diagrams. We have the luxury of including images. We shouldn't remove them because plain text may suffice. -- Ec5618 18:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yourself and Kinst are very verbose in why such pictures should be retained, thus I question where you both draw the line and feel pictures are inappropriate? In the World Trade Articles should we have pictures of corpses so people can visualise and understand the damage caused? Blunt trauma death babies in the abortion article? How about prolapsed rectums with fecal drainage in the anal sex article as a potential consequence of going too hard? Where do you both draw the line? 211.30.71.59 00:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

As an aside, -I- draw the line where I begin to offend people, all academic credability goes out the window if you just offend your audience. Which is where many articles are heading. 211.30.71.59 00:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You might as well argue that the articles on certain swear words and on certain hystoric symbols should be deleted. Certainly, adding content with the intent to offend people is unencyclopedic, but deleting content because some people choose to be offended is mad. Surely, images of the subject matter aren't meant to offend, but to educate.
As for images of corpses, you may want to see our article on mass graves and embalming. Images generally add to articles. -- Ec5618 06:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't help but feel that objections to this photo are based solely on the fact that some people find the anus picture unattractive. Should Wikipedia limit itself to only including aesthetically pleasing images? Ban ugly politicians etc. The article is on the subject of "Anus". It contains a picture of an anus. This picture will be seen only by those who choose to view the page on the topic of "Anus"- who surely can't be that prudish. Are there people who look up pages on genitals, sexual themes etc. just to see if there might be a photo they can object to? Isn't it odd that those who most strongly object to the anus image claim most knowledge of what the average anus looks like. This seems counter-intuitive... In any event, the photo is reasonably small- to get the full detail the user has to choose to click on it. I fully support the continued use of the image. It is informational in a way diagrams cannot be. Especially given that it is anatomically difficult to gain so good a perspective on one's own anus. WJBscribe 07:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


An external photograph of an anus and nothing else would be better to avoid ambiguity. What we have right now is a picture of a load of hair with (presumably) an anus somewhere in the middle. People who are not used to biological terminology of the human anatomy could end up with the impression that the hair in the image corresponds to the word "anus". For all we know, that could be a photograph of an infected Abscess in someone's armpit. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.231.61.249 (talk • contribs) 3 December 2006 @ 15:51 (UTC)

[edit] Anal Bleaching

I added anal bleaching again after it was removed because someone said it was an unsourced urban legend. As long as wikipedia hosts the page: Anal bleaching (which implies that Anal bleaching is notable and meets most of the wikipedia guidelines for inclusions), this page should link to it as a Cosmetic treatment. --TrollHistorian 22:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the anal bleaching topic should stay Paskari 20:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] legal documentation

I realize you are being more percise by including legal matters, but paraphrasing and providing links works almost as well, and it's easier on the eyes Paskari 20:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Picture Suggestion

I have a new suggestion for the photo, and I'd like to know what people think of it. I, and many other people, think the current picture is disgusting. As Wikipedia is not censored, why don't we remove the current picture, and replace it with three new pictures. The new pictures should contain a different type of (gasp!) anus each. Each anus should be female, and belong to a different race of people. I'm not a politically correct person, but I know that there is more than one color/type of anus. I believe that one picture should contain a White Female Anus, another one should have a Black Female Anus, and the other should show an Oriental Female Anus; however, if an anal photo of any of the three races I said about here is unavailable, a different race would be acceptable. I'm not preaching or promoting diversity or anything like that; I'm just saying that Wikipedia can't just show one type of anus, especially one as disgusting as the one currently on the page. The only thing that needs to be done is to find a picture of the three types of anus I mentioned. Acalamari 17:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If we had an alternative image, we would use it. Finding such an image seems to be quite difficult. Few editors seem willing to submit their own anus as the archetypal anus, and none of our contributors have more than one anus. -- Ec5618 18:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Turbo Ronin 20:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC) States:

The only improvement we need is one that is less hairy (but not one that is obviously shaved and cosmeticized, i.e. a porn star anus). Any race is fine, but only one image is needed. The one in place now is OK, except the amount of hair somewhat obscures the anatomical detail. An anus is neither a primary sexual characteristic, a secondary sexual characteristic, nor a racial/ethnic characteristic. Therefore we just need a fairly neutral, representative anus, and we don't need to label whether it is male or female. In fact any mammal anus would be just fine. Apart from the fur and surrounding skin, the anatomy of the actual anus is essentially the same. The Crow 15:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this article being too humanocentric? It deals with ONLY the human anus. Don't forget: EVERY animal has an anus. So since everyone has problems with the different anus photos put on the article, why not just use a photo of an animal anus? It would not be contrivesial then!!! --Amamo Yamaso

We try to be as non-homosapiensapienocentric as we can be. First, as a matter of pragmatism, we try to limit the images to animals that are likely to be sentient in the next few thousand years, as well as animals in our solar system. Also, of those, the ones more likely to be reading Wikipedia. Atom 13:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)